BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the management of cardiac arrest during pregnancy exist but they are based on little research. The study hypothesis was that experienced medical clinicians who specialise in obstetric care would not follow current International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation/American Heart Association recommendations in this situation. METHODS: Following waiver of informed consent by the institutional review board, an anonymous structured scenario questionnaire survey was conducted among relevant hospital clinicians. Demographic details included field of expertise and resuscitation experience. A single case vignette of maternal cardiac arrest was presented, followed by nine questions to examine knowledge of existing recommendations for maternal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 12 software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 67% (30/45 questionnaires). Specialist obstetricians, midwives and anaesthetists from 17 hospitals participated. Forty-three percent (n=13) claimed broad experience, 50% (n=15) claimed some experience and 6.7% (n=2) claimed no experience in adult resuscitation. Participants were divided in their opinions regarding every choice of action: positioning, need to administer cricoid pressure during mask ventilation, timing of intubation, location of external chest compression, location of paddle placement for delivery of shock during ventricular fibrillation, the timing of defibrillation versus fetal delivery, medication doses and the need to rupture the membranes at an early phase of the resuscitation. CONCLUSION: Specialist clinicians who treat pregnant women in hospital on a daily basis possess a limited knowledge of the recommendations for treating maternal cardiac arrest.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the management of cardiac arrest during pregnancy exist but they are based on little research. The study hypothesis was that experienced medical clinicians who specialise in obstetric care would not follow current International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation/American Heart Association recommendations in this situation. METHODS: Following waiver of informed consent by the institutional review board, an anonymous structured scenario questionnaire survey was conducted among relevant hospital clinicians. Demographic details included field of expertise and resuscitation experience. A single case vignette of maternal cardiac arrest was presented, followed by nine questions to examine knowledge of existing recommendations for maternal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 12 software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 67% (30/45 questionnaires). Specialist obstetricians, midwives and anaesthetists from 17 hospitals participated. Forty-three percent (n=13) claimed broad experience, 50% (n=15) claimed some experience and 6.7% (n=2) claimed no experience in adult resuscitation. Participants were divided in their opinions regarding every choice of action: positioning, need to administer cricoid pressure during mask ventilation, timing of intubation, location of external chest compression, location of paddle placement for delivery of shock during ventricular fibrillation, the timing of defibrillation versus fetal delivery, medication doses and the need to rupture the membranes at an early phase of the resuscitation. CONCLUSION: Specialist clinicians who treat pregnant women in hospital on a daily basis possess a limited knowledge of the recommendations for treating maternal cardiac arrest.
Authors: Andrea D Shields; Jacqueline Battistelli; Laurie Kavanagh; Lara Ouellette; Brook Thomson; Peter Nielsen Journal: Cardiol Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-05-23
Authors: Merrill Thomas; Vittal Hejjaji; Yuanyuan Tang; Kevin Kennedy; Anna Grodzinsky; Paul S Chan Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 10.693
Authors: Jill M Mhyre; Lawrence C Tsen; Sharon Einav; Elena V Kuklina; Lisa R Leffert; Brian T Bateman Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Ann-Chatrin L Leonardsen; Edel J Svendsen; Grethe B Heitmann; Adam Dhayyat; Ann Morris; Katrine D Sjøborg; Richard M Olsen; Camilla Hardeland Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 3.240